From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Hicks

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division
Mar 21, 2023
Civil Action 9:22cv147 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 9:22cv147

03-21-2023

ERIC JACKSON v. SERGEANT HICKS, ET AL.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Eric Jackson, an inmate confined at the Lewis Unit, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the filing fee or submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a statement certified by an authorized prison official showing his average balance in and deposits into Plaintiff's inmate trust account for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's compliance was due on or before the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of the order.

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962).

As of this date, Plaintiff has neither paid the $402.00 filing fee nor submitted a properly supported Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as ordered. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this action. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Recommendation

This case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Hicks

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division
Mar 21, 2023
Civil Action 9:22cv147 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2023)
Case details for

Jackson v. Hicks

Case Details

Full title:ERIC JACKSON v. SERGEANT HICKS, ET AL.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division

Date published: Mar 21, 2023

Citations

Civil Action 9:22cv147 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2023)